Scenario 2 as Allies in November 44. I'm finding that my Corsair pilots are suffering from fatigue far quicker than other fighter pilots, regardless of experience, CAP levels, leadership etc. Any reason for this. I can only think maybe the extra range may be making a difference. I haven't checked in detail but I'm sure there are other fighters at the same base with similar range capabilities that aren't suffering as much.

The extra range does have an effect. Another possibility that I have been wondering about but haven't found an answer to is whether patrol altitude has an effect on fatigue.

Correct on both counts.

1. Distance travelled does impact on pilot fatigue levels. Ergo a unit operating further away from its base will see higher pilot fatigue levels than one which is operating closer to its base. Therefore be very careful when flying LRCAP or using drop tanks.

2. Pilot fatigue levels also increase more when flying a single engine aircraft at >80% the aircraft's maximum altitude level. IOW if aircraft has a maximum altitude level of 30k', additional pilot fatigue accrues if the aircraft is flown above 24k'.

ORIGINAL: They should also be suffering from more operational losses; the Corsair wasn't called "Ensign Eliminator" for nothing!

I have had enough of this apocryphal nonsense. My father flew Corsairs (Ens Robt. C. Price, JR, look him up). This Ensign Eliminator crap is just that. Anybody out there have a motorcycle? Well, just open the throttle all the way when you want to go out of your driveway.

If you are that stupid, you might just get a clue about how some Ensigns could let a powerful aircraft get away from them. It ain't the plane, it's the asshole in the driver's seat.

ORIGINAL: Symon ... It ain't the plane, it's the asshole in the driver's seat.

Didn't the F4U Corsair have the same twin Wasp engine as the P-47 Thunderbolt? Yet to my knowledge there weren't any negative nick names about the Thunderbolt; on the contrary, it had a reputation for durability and of bringing its pilot home despite extensive battle damage.

Although carrier capable, Corsairs were all land-based until pilots learned to "crab-walk" them unto CVs.

The F4U was a more difficult plane to master, and not everyone was up to the challenge.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U The best fighter-bomber of World War II

ORIGINAL: Symon ... It ain't the plane, it's the asshole in the driver's seat.

Didn't the F4U Corsair have the same twin Wasp engine as the P-47 Thunderbolt? Yet to my knowledge there weren't any negative nick names about the Thunderbolt; on the contrary, it had a reputation for durability and of bringing its pilot home despite extensive battle damage.

Although carrier capable, Corsairs were all land-based until pilots learned to "crab-walk" them unto CVs.

The F4U was a more difficult plane to master, and not everyone was up to the challenge.

ORIGINAL: Symon Yep, you are right. You are totaly right. Sorry I ever said anything.

Why are you being so apologetic? No one chastised you for having a contrary opinion.

But if you were being sarcastic, consider that several other WW II war birds earned bad reputations: the unsightly Consolidated Liberator was referred to as "the box the B-17 came in" and the Dauntles Dive Bomber was called S.O.B 2nd Class by its own crews.

And I'm sure there were were more.

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 2/7/2013 10:50:27 PM >

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U The best fighter-bomber of World War II

ORIGINAL: Symon ... It ain't the plane, it's the asshole in the driver's seat.

Didn't the F4U Corsair have the same twin Wasp engine as the P-47 Thunderbolt? Yet to my knowledge there weren't any negative nick names about the Thunderbolt; on the contrary, it had a reputation for durability and of bringing its pilot home despite extensive battle damage.

Although carrier capable, Corsairs were all land-based until pilots learned to "crab-walk" them unto CVs.

The F4U was a more difficult plane to master, and not everyone was up to the challenge.

The engine in the F4U was more similar to that in the F6F than the P-47. All had the P&W R-2800, but the P-47 had a turbo-supercharger, while the F4U and F6F had a two speed mechanical supercharger.

Early versions of the F4U had some issues. Forward visibility was poor, the plane had a tendency to bounce on landing because the main landing gear struts were too stiff, and one wing would dip on stall. The visibility was improved some by adding the bubble canopy, which allowed the pilot to raise the seat and get a better look over the nose; the bounce was fixed by changing the shock absorbers on the landing gear; and the stall was fixed by adding a spoiler to the right wing. The tailwheel strut was also lengthened to improve directional stability in landings.

The F6F had famously good handling characteristics, while the F4U had superior performance. Both were capable, but it's probably significant that the F4U continued in production after the war and the F6F didn't.

ORIGINAL: msieving1 The F6F had famously good handling characteristics, while the F4U had superior performance. Both were capable, but it's probably significant that the F4U continued in production after the war and the F6F didn't.

I think the F4U's prowess as a fighter-bomber might have been the difference. The Marines still needed the plane in that role, whereas the Navy had developed the F8F as a follow-on fighter and were in the process of developing jets for use on carriers.

ORIGINAL: msieving1 The engine in the F4U was more similar to that in the F6F than the P-47 ...

My last point had more to do with relative reputations than mechanical similarities.

As the Corsair was "cutting edge," many mechanical issues still needed to be worked out before it became fully operational; IMO, there could be more operational losses in the game to reflect those issues.

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 2/8/2013 11:48:42 AM >

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U The best fighter-bomber of World War II

ORIGINAL: msieving1 The engine in the F4U was more similar to that in the F6F than the P-47 ...

My last point had more to do with relative reputations than mechanical similarities.

As the Corsair was "cutting edge," many mechanical issues still needed to be worked out before it became fully operational; IMO, there could be more operational losses in the game to reflect those issues.

The handling characteristics that gave the Corsair its bad reputation were mostly fixed after the first 1,000 or so planes were built, with over 12,000 total Corsairs produced. Overall, the Corsair had fewer vices than some other fighters, including the P-51. But being a Navy fighter, it would most often be compared to the Hellcat, which was a particularly good handling aircraft.

I've seen data on loss rates for all Navy aircraft in WW2. I don't have it handy, but I don't recall that operational losses for the Corsair were particularly high. Carrier based operations were inherently riskier than land based ops, so I'm sure the Hellcat had a higher overall operational loss rate than the Corsair.

As for operational loss rates in the game, I don't think the model of plane is factored in.

The B-26 was called "the widow maker"until pilots adjusted to its high landing speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon Yep, you are right. You are totaly right. Sorry I ever said anything.

Why are you being so apologetic? No one chastised you for having a contrary opinion.

But if you were being sarcastic, consider that several other WW II war birds earned bad reputations: the unsightly Consolidated Liberator was referred to as "the box the B-17 came in" and the Dauntles Dive Bomber was called S.O.B 2nd Class by its own crews.

ORIGINAL: Symon Yep, you are right. You are totaly right. Sorry I ever said anything.

Why are you being so apologetic? No one chastised you for having a contrary opinion.

But if you were being sarcastic, consider that several other WW II war birds earned bad reputations: the unsightly Consolidated Liberator was referred to as "the box the B-17 came in" and the Dauntles Dive Bomber was called S.O.B 2nd Class by its own crews.

And I'm sure there were were more.

Was being overly sensitive, perhaps. Wasn't directed at you, or anyone else. If you got that impression, I apologize. Wasn't meant that way.

I get a wee bit of a woodie when the community piles on with apocrypha and wikipoedia, to get game changes in their behalf; game code changes have already reached the unacceptable level for our purposes. Dr Deming said it best, "To chase a value ensures the value will never be reached, and the harder you apply the controls, the more non-linear and counter-intuitive, your results."

Dad (step Dad, as if..) was a pilot. He wasn't some Ensign from a V-12 program, he was a pilot. So he had that birdman thing in his soul. He told me the F4U was the sweetest thing he ever flew. Like him, I too am a pilot. I'm exactly the same kind of pilot; know the bird, know your limitations and the plane's limitations and just ... fly. In fact, after moving to Alabama, I hooked up with some of the X-plane guys from Pensacola, and knew I would have to learn a new paradigm. Have a thirty year old private license, but took a Sport Course from some friendly Lts from P'cola because otherwise, I would have killed myself, and Beaudy the Wonder Dog would have been righteously pissed.

Point is, planes don't kill. A$$holes in the cockpit do kill; mostly themselves, but they have crew too. I have flown on several B-26s configured for civilian service, and thought nothing about having a vodka-tonic, a cuban sandwich, and a nap. Had some time in the right seat and it was very similar to an Mu-2, except for the flare.

People need to understand airplanes. Not just look on wikipoedia, but know how to fly, and know how a machine responds to inputs. But that's probably asking too much.

JWE

[ed] thing is, for threads like this, soon as anybody who knows shoot from shinola, posts, all the liddle kiddles scurry for cover like roaches when the light goes on, and the thread dies. But this is a good thread, so as long as the liddle kiddles can be kept at a distance, I think this thread has some value.

I think the name came from the fact not all planes handle the same. Some are more forgiving then others and are easier for new pilots to handle. It's not that the plane kills anyone per say but that something that is of no consequence in one aircraft can kill you in another aircraft. Some planes are easier for new pilots to handle due to their handling characteristics. This doesn't make the plane a bad one and if doesn't make new pilots bad pilots. Sometimes a plane can require a more experienced hand at the stick. This is also why we train our pilots on trainers that are hopefully very forgiving.

Also something that non military types may have a difficult time with is that military humor can at times be very dark...

Point is, planes don't kill. A$$holes in the cockpit do kill; mostly themselves, but they have crew too. I have flown on several B-26s configured for civilian service, and thought nothing about having a vodka-tonic, a cuban sandwich, and a nap. Had some time in the right seat and it was very similar to an Mu-2, except for the flare.

People need to understand airplanes. Not just look on wikipoedia, but know how to fly, and know how a machine responds to inputs. But that's probably asking too much.

I don't think anyone is indicating that anyone but the pilots themselves are ultimately responsible for any mishaps. The proof is in the pudding that the plane was reliable enough to be very effective throughout the war.

The impression I was getting from this thread is that it just had a steeper learning curve compared to some other planes (such as the Hellcat). But it's pretty evident that ultimately the Corsair was a superior plane to the Hellcat, otherwise they would have just stuck with the Hellcat! :P

Point is, planes don't kill. A$$holes in the cockpit do kill; mostly themselves, but they have crew too. I have flown on several B-26s configured for civilian service, and thought nothing about having a vodka-tonic, a cuban sandwich, and a nap. Had some time in the right seat and it was very similar to an Mu-2, except for the flare.

People need to understand airplanes. Not just look on wikipoedia, but know how to fly, and know how a machine responds to inputs. But that's probably asking too much.

I don't think anyone is indicating that anyone but the pilots themselves are ultimately responsible for any mishaps. The proof is in the pudding that the plane was reliable enough to be very effective throughout the war.

The impression I was getting from this thread is that it just had a steeper learning curve compared to some other planes (such as the Hellcat). But it's pretty evident that ultimately the Corsair was a superior plane to the Hellcat, otherwise they would have just stuck with the Hellcat! :P

I also suspect the marines wanted alittle more difficult plane to handle so they had something to talk about to the navy fly boys in the bars. Seems to me the Marines pride themselves with doing more with older equipment. I heard one form of the f4u was heavily used in the Korean war.

Actually it was Helldiver that had had nickname "SOB 2nd class". Dauntless was well-loved and forgiving plane. Helldiver was one of those planes that pilots called "hot", meaning great performance, but unforgiving to pilot errors.

Another great but "hot" plane was B-26 Marauder, gaining nicknames like "Martin Murderer" or "Flying Prostitute" (having no "visible means of support")

We have to remember that in WW II Allied pilots were mass-produced and never in real shortage, planes were often the limiting factor of operations. Inevitably, some of those young men found themselves unable to cope with powerful beasts they were supposed to fly and many accounted as training and operational losses.

As "Fire in the Sky" says in anecdotal evidence from one pilot: "If you lost engine in B-25 while taking off, you had good chance of surviving. If you lost engine in B-26 during take off, you were dead, unless you were very good.". That to be said, (again freely quoting) good and experienced pilot could do more in B-26 than in B-25 in combat, but those were in short supply in Pacific.

We should never forget that most of pilots in WW II were inadequately trained compared to today's standards and whole combat process was "sink or swim".

Bottom line is, some planes were more forgiving to pilot error than others...and novice pilots were and are more akin to make errors. Thus some planes got reputation of being "hot".